Ahmedabad ITAT rules in Naman Vidyapati Patel Vs PCIT that the cancellation of a land deal and refund of received amounts, even post-search, negated the claim of unaccounted income, quashing the PCIT’s revision order under Section 263.
ITAT directs the Assessing Officer to freshly adjudicate the tax case of Meenaz Anjum Dayatar to allow her to claim cost of acquisition and indexation against the sale of a crore property, which was incorrectly taxed as unexplained income under Section 68.
The Ahmedabad ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order in Nidhiben Mrugeshkumar Shah Vs ACIT(OSD), restoring the addition dispute of ₹10,00,100 under Section 69A for fresh review.
The AO virtually passed an ex parte order regarding a70 lakh addition, ignoring the assessee’s detailed submissions and denying a proper opportunity. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)’s decision to set aside the assessment and remand the matter for a fresh adjudication, confirming that violations of natural justice necessitate a proper de novo inquiry.
ITAT Ahmedabad partly allows appeal in Somnath Bandopadhaya v. ITO, deleting ₹2.27 crore addition under Section 69A after verifying explained bank deposits.
The Revenue treated a documented sale of gold, with payment received via RTGS, as a bogus accommodation entry solely based on the buyer’s failure to reply to a section 133(6) notice. The Tribunal held that concrete evidence, including the full bank trail, stock records, and invoice, outweighs a general investigation report or the non-cooperation of a third party, and deleted the unjustified addition under section 69A.
The ITAT deleted the entire Rs.3.94 crore Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment, ruling that three companies involved in product development, distribution, and proprietary software (Kellton, Magnasoft, Interglobe) were functionally dissimilar to a captive software service provider.2 The Tribunal held that excluding these companies brought the assessees margin of within the Arms Length Price (ALP) range.
The AO made massive ex-parte additions under Section 69A after the assessee failed to respond to notices sent to an incorrect email ID of his deceased former CA. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)’s decision to set aside the ex-parte assessment for fresh adjudication, utilizing the Finance Act 2024 amendment to Section 251, which grants the CIT(A) the power to remit Section 144 best judgment assessments.
Ahmedabad ITAT set aside an ex-parte order confirming ₹1.63 Cr tax additions against a real estate operator, ruling that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee’s written submissions and the AO’s Remand Report.
The Ahmedabad ITAT set aside a ₹1 lakh penalty under Section 271BA, ruling that failure to electronically file the Form 3CEB transfer pricing report was a mere technical and procedural default. Crucially, the report was prepared before the search and later physically filed with the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO).
